SUO: RE: Almost-Final Ballot Questions
Dear Frank,
You ask about the difference between a data model and an ontology.
Ontology is a rod that gets abused at thte moment, so I will qualify
the word and use the term "formal ontology".
I think I would want to argue that a formal ontology is something
that can define concepts with the full expressive power of First
Order Logic. You might want to weaken that to allow Discription
Logics.
Data models have less descriptive power even than Description
Logics, but are more descriptive than simple taxonomies.
You will see that there is a whole range here, and we sit at the
most expressive end of it.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Farance [mailto:frank@farance.com]
> Sent: 20 May 2003 11:41
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Almost-Final Ballot Questions
>
>
>
> At 09:06 2003-05-20 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > Dear Frank,
> >
> > Some relevant and thought provoking comments. See my
> responses below.
>
> Matthew-
>
> I agree with all your points and I have a question about one of them.
>
> > ...
> > >
> > > Jim (and other SUO members)-
> > >
> > > Sorry for my late response, but I've been trying to read
> > > through the mail.
> > >
> > > My first comment concerns "building the hierarchy":
> > >
> > > - As I mentioned in the past, we should use a
> > > registry-based approach for building SUO, SUOs, micro-SUOs,
> > > whatever over time. In that registry, we would store
> > > theories, micro-theories, classification schemes, blah, blah,
> > > blah. This is consistent with Matthew West's and John
> > > Velman's notion of a "posh dictionary" (see my E-mail on
> > > 2001-10-17 and followup discussion).
> >
> > MW: I agree a Registry is an appropriate mechanism.
> >
> > > - Several SUO participants were at the Open Forum in
> > > 2003-01 in Santa Fe. In short, ISO/IEC 11179 (ISO Metadata
> > > Registries) could be used as an off-the-shelf technique for
> > > registering the kind of information discussed. The ISO/IEC
> > > standard is freely available -- I've put a copy at:
> > > http://farance.com/metadata/iso_iec_11179-3_2003.pdf
> >
> > MW: I am skeptical that this will prove suitable. For ISO15926
> > we have not found that "off the shelf" registries would work,
> > and what we are trying here is more complex than that. However,
> > I say this before reading your reference, which I will take
> > a look at. I am confident that even if we do not use an
> > existing Registry standard, we can learn from existing ones.
>
> I can tell you in advance that one feature that is "missing"
> from 11179-3 is *specific* relationship types. For example,
> even using 11179-3 for terminology registration, some basic
> relationship types (e.g., broader, narrower, etc.) are not
> "built-in". Typically, the relationship types get added to
> the standard that incorporates the registry (e.g., "standard
> X specifies relationship types R1, R2, ..., Rn (via normative
> wording), and uses a registry for the remainder of the
> standard). In other cases, the relationship types themselves
> are part of the registry (i.e., there is a registry of
> relationship types, so one is not limited to a fixed set).
>
> > > - Several features of 11179-3 may be used:
> > > "definition" portion (e.g., terminology-like things), "data
> > > elements", "value domains" (e.g., enumerated and
> > > non-enumerated sets of value-meaning pairs), "classification
> > > schemes" (e.g., general "relationship" facility), and so on.
> >
> > MW: These terms suggest they are looking at storing data models
> > rather than FOL theories, concepts and constraints. We would
> > need rather different capabilities.
>
> I believe the definition portion is more terminology-like,
> and the classification schemes can be used for
> classifications and taxonomies. My guess is that FOL
> theories, concepts, and constraints could make use of the
> definitions portion of 11179-3. There is no "right answer"
> in this regard, which is much like programming langauges --
> in order to calculate N multiplied by 4, I have several
> choices, such as using the * operation (multiplication), the
> + operator (repetitive addition), the << operator (a couple
> of bit shifts).
>
> Also, at the Open Forum in a room full of terminology and
> ontology folks (including people on this list), I asked the
> question "what are the essential and delimiting
> characteristics of an ontology" -- in short, how would I know
> if an ontology hit me over the head? -- and with
> terminologists in the room to help, I was certain to have a
> precise definition of "ontology".
>
> For those who are not familiar with terminology standards
> speak, here's some excerpts from ISO 704 (Terminology work --
> Principles and methods):
>
> 5.3.3 Essential vs. non-essential characteristics
>
> Not all characteristics are equally important. For
> practical purposes, the essential characteristics of the
> intension shall be the focal point of any analysis and may
> differ according to specific fields. Characteristics are
> considered essential if they are indispensable for the
> understanding of the concept in a particular field of
> knowledge; the absence of an essential characteristic
> fundamentally changes the concept. The absence of an
> essential characteristic in the course of an analysis will
> lead to poor or even erroneous understanding of the concept.
> In the example of the 'lead pencil', if the characteristic
> graphite core encased in wood were removed, the concept would
> be radically changed. It would represent a different concept
> corresponding to a different set of objects. Therefore, this
> is an essential characteristic. On the other hand, if the
> characteristic one end is sharpened to a point were removed,
> the concept would not be altered. Although a lead p!
> encil must be sharpened in order to write, it still
> qualifies as a lead pencil, even if it has not been
> sharpened. Therefore, this characteristic is not essential
> to the understanding of the concept of 'lead pencil'. The
> essential characteristics of a concept, such as 'lead
> pencil', shall be identified. It is not always necessary to
> categorize the characteristics explicitly as in example 3,
> only in cases where the concept in question is highly complex.
>
> Example 3:
> level of abstraction|1. concreteness
> |essential
> composition |2. made of a long, thin piece
> of graphite|essential
> composition |3. graphite is encased in wood
> |essential
> colour |4. casing may be coloured
> |non-essential
> composition |5. one end may have an eraser
> |non-essential
> shape |6. one end may be sharpened to
> a point |non-essential
> usage |7. must be sharpened for usage
> |essential
> medium |8. graphite is the writing
> medium |essential
> function |9. used for writing or making
> marks |essential
>
> It must be noted that the same property of a given
> object may be abstracted as an essential characteristic of a
> concept in one subject field but may be non-essential in another.
>
> 5.3.4 Delimiting characteristics
>
> After identifying the essential characteristics that
> make up the intension of a concept, the terminological
> analysis shall be taken a step further. Each essential
> characteristic of the concept under study shall be analyzed
> in relation to the related concepts in the concept system.
> Common or shared characteristics indicate similarities
> between concepts; delimiting characteristics signal
> differences which set a concept apart (see examples 7 and 8).
> A delimiting characteristic is an essential characteristic
> that distinguishes one concept from another. However,
> delimiting and common are relative terms. The same essential
> characteristic may be delimiting in relation to one concept
> but common in relation to another related concept. Analysing
> the similarities and differences between concepts will result
> in the unique set of characteristics that typify a given
> concept. This unique combination of characteristics will
> situate the concept within a network of related conc!
> epts with similar or different characteristics. The
> relations between the concepts shall be used to determine the
> basic structure of the concept system. Understanding the
> characteristics used to develop the concept system simplifies
> the task of defining a concept.
>
> So in the context of the Open Forum meeting, the ontology
> folks did not produce a list of essential and delimiting
> characteristics of the concept of an "ontology". This was
> especially confusing because at some point in the meeting,
> someone gave a presentation that used an illustration of an
> ontology for wine-making (Pat, Chris, John: do you
> remember?). As far as I could tell, the ontology was no
> different than a UML model. So I asked: "What's the
> difference between an ontology and a UML model?". The answer
> was: well, they are about the same -- ontologies can be UML
> models and vice versa. Now I didn't have confidence in that
> particular answer, but it appears that for some people, UML
> models are ontologies -- which means that the so-called "data
> modeling" portions of 11179-3 (which you have identified)
> could be used for ontologies, too.
>
> I'm not so sure about "ontologies" vs. "UML models".
> However, I am certain that I need to understand the essential
> and delimiting characteristics of "ontology" <-- in this
> regard, I don't have a crisp definition -- maybe someone can
> help with a definition.
>
> > ...
> > > My next set of comments concern the nature of the standard
> > > itself. What kind of standard are we talking about? Based
> > > on the motions below and the referenced documents, it is hard
> > > for me to tell. I'm using terminology of ISO/IEC Guide 2
> > > ("Standardization and related activities -- General
> > > vocabulary") below.
> >
> > MW: I rather see the motions below as "Preliminary Work Items"
> > which might themselves result in proposals for specific standards
> > in the areas they identify.
>
> OK.
>
> > > ...
> > > - basic standard: At first glance, this has some nice
> > > appeal, but these kind of standards are difficult to write
> > > because one should have a whole framework of standards that
> > > are developed from the core module. Sure, this sounds like
> > > SUO, but it isn't clear to me: (1) what the basic provisions
> > > will be, and (2) what kind of system/thing will conform to
> > > the standard. So while one may have some "information
> > > contained in a document", what kind of systems/things will
> > > conform to this document? If one can't answer the
> > > "conformance" question (i.e., "what kind of systems/things
> > > conform"), then the document isn't really a standard, but a
> > > technical report (TR). A TR is OK, but we should be clear
> > > that we are developing a TR (if that is what is desired).
> >
> > MW: I suspect that IFF falls into this category. It provides
> > a framework and specification for implementing a lattice of
> > theories that would determine the structure of a Register
> > (amongst other things).
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
> > ...
> > > > ------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Ballot Question #1 (Latest Draft from Adam Pease):
> > > >
> > > > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
> > > Working Group
> > > > commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO)
> > > version 1.51
> > > > [April 11, 2003] posted at:
> > > >
> > > http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/
> > > SUO/Merge.t
> > > > xt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain with the intent of
> > > developing it into
> > > > a final SUO document."
> > >
> > > I can't support this motion because I don't understand (yet)
> > > what kind of standard this will be. I can't tell "what
> > > conforms" to this kind of document.
> >
> > MW: I think there are two things that this standard does:
> >
> > 1. It is a statement of fact, which you can hopefully find answers
> > to questions in.
> >
> > 2. It is a terminology specification. You conform by using the
> > terms with the specified meaning.
>
> OK.
>
> > > > ------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Ballot Question #2 (Latest Draft from John Sowa):
> > > >
> > > > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
> > > > Working Group commence work on a project to develop
> > > > a standard based on three starting candidates,
> > > > IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO, and continuing as follows:
> > >
> > > I can't support this motion either for the same reason: it is
> > > not clear "what conforms" to this kind of merged document.
> >
> > MW: I guess OpenCyc is much the same as SUMO. IFF, as well as being
> > a statement of fact is a basic standard.
>
> OK.
>
> > ...
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> -FF
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
> mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
> Standards/Products/Services for Information/Communication Technologies
>
>
>